Make vs n8n
The most capable no-code canvas, or source-available automation you can host yourself?
Both sit between Zapier's simplicity and a real programming environment. Make gives operations teams routers, iterators and aggregators without code. n8n gives technical teams the same power plus arbitrary JavaScript, self-hosting and cheaper execution billing.
[ 01 ] Dimension by dimension
Where each tool actually pulls ahead.
| Dimension | Make | n8n | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Per operation, one per module run | Per workflow execution | n8n |
| Self-hosting | Not available | Yes, free under fair-code licence | n8n |
| Visual clarity | Best-in-class spatial canvas | Functional, denser | Make |
| Custom code | Limited to specific modules | JavaScript and Python anywhere | n8n |
| Iteration and aggregation | Excellent native primitives | Available, more manual | Make |
| AI and agent nodes | Present, less developed | Native agents and LLM chains | n8n |
| Non-technical accessibility | Good | Moderate | Make |
| Operational burden | None; fully managed | Real if self-hosted | Make |
[ 02 ] The verdict
If nobody on the team writes code, Make is the more capable tool and the better experience. If anyone does, n8n is more powerful and materially cheaper, particularly self-hosted.
Choose Make if
Your builders are operations people, you want a polished visual canvas, and you have no appetite for hosting anything.
Read the Make reviewChoose n8n if
You have technical capacity, need self-hosting or code steps, and run enough volume that execution-based billing matters.
Read the n8n review[ 03 ] Related comparisons